Bilingual Greetings in Federal Institutions: Let’s Talk About It!

2.1.1. Incomplete understanding of the active offer obligation

The study findings revealed that awareness and understanding of in-person active offer is fundamental in ensuring that clients’ language rights are respected. If employees do not know about active offer and its requirements, they cannot make it. Based on the focus group and interview results, there seems to be a good general awareness of the existence of the obligation. However, although all study participants understood that bilingual services must be provided, some were not aware that they were required under the Act to greet clients in both official languages at all times.

The level of awareness about active offer seems to be related to the work environment and the type of service provided (discussed in more detail in section 2.2.). For example, awareness is particularly high among front-line employees and supervisors in bilingual regions and among those who work at service counters. A clear finding of this study was that the volume of official-language minority clients has an impact on the awareness of active offer. While this was true for most study participants, there were some exceptions: for example, a front-line employee in British Columbia reported being very aware of the active offer obligation, despite the fact that there are few client requests for service in French in that province.

2.1.2. Training and communications important for compliance

Most of the front-line employees and supervisors who were consulted were aware of the active offer obligation. However, those who work in specific environments seemed to be more aware of the details of the obligation. This heightened awareness could be partly the result of the extent of training and communications delivered in that environment.

The study results suggest that approaches to active offer training and communications vary by the type of service provided. For example, focus group participants who work at service counters said that learning about active offer was an integral part of their job training. Many executives who were interviewed also said that the topic of active offer was covered comprehensively during staff training. A few front-line employees and executives said that certain videos about active offer were an important part of training. Videos depicting the human side of active offer and focusing on respecting rights were cited as being particularly effective, as opposed to those quoting policy and stressing legal obligations. A few executives noted that these videos helped to foster understanding and cooperation among front-line staff by shifting the focus from what active offer requires them to do to why they should do it. Study participants from institutions that provide other types of services described less targeted training, such as simply being told what they were required to do to meet the obligation.

Monitoring active offer also varies by type of service. Some study participants said that their performance in terms of active offer is integrated into service standards and performance reviews. Others were provided with less dynamic tools such as periodic e-mail reminders.

Training and communications can also be provided through individual feedback. An important way to assess whether training and communications have been effective is to monitor interactions between front-line employees and clients. Some institutions conduct regular monitoring activities. In many offices, monitoring is systematic and viewed as an institutional accountability measure. Some institutions have addressed the situation proactively to reduce the likelihood of complaints. In other institutions, the benefits and importance of monitoring are acknowledged, but resources to monitor front-line staff are limited.

Following up with front-line employees to discuss the results of monitoring is also a measure that has been taken by many of the institutions that participated in the study. In-person discussions and consistent reminders are important to raise awareness and to help employees develop the habit of greeting clients in both official languages.

2.1.3. Assumptions that clients are aware of bilingual services

Active offer lets clients know that services in both official languages are available, because many may not be aware of this. Not all front-line employees or supervisors understand this. The study results show that some assume that clients are aware of the availability of services in both official languages. Some focus group participants mentioned that the availability of bilingual services is evident through signage in government offices as well as through websites and other communications.

Some study participants disagreed with this assumption, noting that signage often goes unnoticed and that clients are often surprised that in-person bilingual services are available. This situation is particularly common in locations with a smaller official-language minority population, such as the Western regions, but is also found in bilingual areas such as the National Capital Region.

This assumption about clients’ awareness of bilingual services contributes to another misperception that active offer is not always necessary. However, the extent to which these assumptions influence the decision to make an active offer remains unclear.

2.1.4. Preferred official language often assumed

Some study participants said they felt that they could sometimes make assumptions regarding the client’s official language preference based on various indications. This occurs mainly when clients are known or when they are heard speaking prior to being greeted by the front-line employee. Making assumptions about the client’s preferred official language can be a significant impediment to active offer.

This was frequently mentioned during focus groups and interviews, especially by employees working in smaller communities where clients are known or in service areas where there are several meetings with the client (e.g., immigration). In both instances, employees felt that they had to make a choice between meeting the active offer obligation and providing a more personalized service. Employees feel that if the client is already known, the bilingual greeting may feel awkward and impersonal. Supervisors mentioned that in these cases, an active offer is usually not made.

The other factor that can lead to an employee’s making assumptions about the client’s official language preference is overhearing the client speak prior to first contact or hearing the client speak before an active offer can be made.

In both instances, the executives who were interviewed noted that these assumptions should be discouraged, because the language the client speaks to someone else or to the employee may not be their preferred language or the language in which they wish to be served. It was noted that perhaps the person the client is speaking to is unilingual or perhaps they prefer to communicate with each other in a certain language. In cases where the client addresses the employee first, the client may not be aware that services are available in both official languages and therefore uses the majority official language. As stated by the executives who were interviewed, when front-line employees make assumptions about clients’ official language preferences—regardless of whether their assumptions are correct—client rights are infringed because the choice guaranteed by the active offer obligation is not provided.

2.2.1. Positive impact of engaged leadership

Leadership has a considerable impact on workplace culture. By influencing policies, tools and mechanisms, leadership determines the way an institution functions. Compliance with the in-person active offer obligation is no exception. As suggested by some executives, if a leader makes active offer a priority, the institution is in a better position to resolve issues and to establish measures and mechanisms to help front-line employees develop the habit of greeting clients in both official languages.

The study results suggest that institutional leader engagement varies when it comes to active offer. Not all executives who were interviewed said that active offer was on the agenda for executive level meetings. Those who did specified that discussions focused mainly on addressing complaints as opposed to developing systematic approaches to support clients’ language rights. One executive, however, spoke of a director who was extremely engaged and who made active offer a priority in institutional service standards. This approach had a positive impact on awareness, attitudes and resulting compliance among front-line employees. The executives who were interviewed noted that if active offer is not a priority at the executive level, then efforts involving in-person active offer tend to decline, which then affects awareness and compliance.

2.2.2. Active offer challenges in areas with smaller official-language minority populations

Study participants felt that they were influenced by the presence of the minority official language, or the relative lack thereof, in the public space in their communities. The frequency of requests in the minority language tends to be linked to the location of the service. In offices that receive fewer requests, employees tend to forget that active offer is still a requirement.

According to study participants, the smaller number of requests for service is one of the main reasons some front-line employees do not make an active offer. The level of demand and, more importantly, contact with members of the official-language minority population (who are usually bilingual) sometimes causes certain employees to doubt the need for systematic active offer.

In regional offices, employees find it difficult to develop or maintain the habit of greeting clients in both official languages. Supervisors and executives in these regions noted the challenge of constantly having to remind their front-line staff to make an in-person active offer.

Study participants in regions where there are fewer requests for services in the minority official language do not oppose the provision of bilingual services; however, some expressed the opinion that active offer was not necessary in all situations and felt that there should be more flexibility in how and when an active offer needs to be made.

Fewer active offer-related issues were mentioned by front-line employees, supervisors and executives working in regions with a higher proportion of official-language minority clients or in offices with a bilingual work environment. These two factors are interrelated. For example, because service providers in the National Capital Region receive requests in French more frequently, the proportion of bilingual employees is higher and the work environment tends to be more bilingual. Active offer is easier to maintain when providing services in English and French on a daily basis. Providing services in a generally bilingual environment makes it easier to get into the habit of making an in-person active offer.

2.2.3. Large volume of clients can result in forgetting active offer

If something has not become a habit, it can be easily forgotten, particularly in moments of stress. The same is true for something as seemingly simple as the bilingual greeting that is required to comply with the in-person active offer obligation. In cases where front-line employees must serve a large volume of clients, where they are facing pressure to maintain prompt service or where they are just feeling overwhelmed, active offer can be easily forgotten.

Study participants felt that the issue can be exacerbated in security-related situations. For example, border services officers and correctional service officers said that they were less likely to make an active offer if there was a risk of a security breach.

2.2.4. Staff scheduling can affect awareness and bilingual capacity

Another issue mentioned by study participants was the rotation of staff in front-line positions. In some institutions, a large pool of front-line employees rotate positions and work shifts. There is a core group of employees who regularly fill positions in which they are the first point of contact for clients.

In some cases, however, employees with less experience must step in. These employees are sometimes less aware of the active offer obligation and do not regularly greet the public in both official languages.

Creating the necessary awareness is therefore a challenge in a workplace where employees rotate positions and work shifts. Employees who work weekends and night shifts may not be able to learn from more experienced colleagues or have direct contact with their supervisors. In-person discussions and reminders to make an active offer are difficult when staff and supervisors are working at different times. In these environments, managers are faced with the challenge of effecting change in their workforce when they see their personnel only a small proportion at a time during their work hours.

2.2.5. Bilingual capacity important to employees

As mentioned by the study participants, complying with the active offer obligation appears to be simple. It is only an extra word in the initial greeting to clients. However, for some employees, the extent of their own ability to provide service in both official languages has a major impact on whether they will make an active offer.

Some unilingual front-line employees do not feel comfortable about being able to continue serving the client if the minority official language is requested and may then decide not to make an active offer.

Furthermore, in some government offices, it can be a challenge to locate a bilingual employee to provide service to the client. This can happen even in offices that are designated as bilingual when bilingual employees are not available or on site.

When no one at the office can provide service in the client’s preferred official language, bilingual employees from other offices must be located in order to serve the client. A number of supervisors from the focus groups reported having to call several offices before finding someone able to provide service in the minority official language. Some supervisors noted that there was a central telephone number or a list of numbers to call. Others reported that lists were often out of date because of employee turnover. Many focus group participants said that this affects the quality of service: what would normally take only a few minutes takes much longer. A few participants said that clients who speak both official languages will often waive their language rights in order to avoid a longer wait.

The issue of bilingual capacity is important on many levels. In an office with little or no bilingual capacity, many front-line staff feel uncomfortable making an active offer. This is also a result of their level of comfort with the second official language.

Front-line employees may feel reluctant to make an active offer when they fear that they will not be able to understand the client in the minority official language and will have to convey that they cannot provide the service themselves and need to locate someone to provide service in the client’s preferred language. Avoiding active offer can also be the result of a negative experience in which a client expressed dissatisfaction with an employee’s language skills.

Focus group participants often discussed language training not only as a means to improve second-language skills and raise comfort levels, but also as a way to increase the number of employees who are comfortable making an active offer and the number of bilingual employees who can provide service of equal quality in both official languages.

Budget limitations were reported to be the primary barrier to language training for some institutions. Coordinating training was also said to be challenging. Because of the nature of the work, it is difficult for some offices to allow employees to take language training during office hours. On-line training is sometimes seen as a practical option but is not always the most effective approach. Practising out loud is important for developing oral skills in a second language, and on-line training is not the best way to develop these skills.

In cases where training is not possible, some front-line employees become frustrated that they must make an active offer but are not given the opportunity to develop the necessary language skills. They are also frustrated with the overall lack of organizational support.

3.1.1. Internal factors: Awareness of obligation and assumptions

Internal factors include issues related to awareness and assumptions:

• Awareness of the active offer obligation
• Assuming clients are aware of the availability of bilingual services
• Assuming clients' official language of preference

Although some of the issues concerning awareness and assumptions are interpersonal (i.e., choices made by front-line staff about how to approach a client), measures to raise awareness and limit assumptions can be established by the institution. Training and ongoing communications are important to raise awareness and improve understanding of the complexities and sensitivities related to official languages and bilingualism. In particular, messages should explain why active offer is important, and then give specific details of what is required. Taking these steps can help to dispel assumptions and ensure that clients’ language rights are respected.

3.1.2. External factors in work environment

External factors include organizational issues related to the work environment:

• Leadership
• Frequency at which services are requested in the minority language
• Volume of clients
• Staff scheduling
• Bilingual capacity

Workplace conditions are usually beyond the control of the front-line employee. Nevertheless, they play an important role in helping front-line employees in—or hindering them from—successfully developing the habit of greeting clients in both official languages. In theory, an in-person active offer is a simple action: an extra word in the initial greeting to clients (“Hello! Bonjour!” or “Bonjour! Hello!”). The study found that in practice, although employees are aware of the obligation, there are significant workplace barriers to making an active offer consistently.